SMT. BHAGWANTI Vs. SMT. GURMIT KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHAGWANTI petitioner has directed these revision petitions against the order of the trial Court dismissing her application for being impleaded as a party under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE facts in brief for the disposal of this revision petition are that originally Anokh Singh, husband of Smt. Bhagwanti, was the owner of the property in dispute. After the death of Anokh Singh, his son Bhagwan Singh transferred the property to the latter's wife Gurmit Kaur. This property was mortgaged with Gurdial Singh by aforesaid Bhagwan Singh, vide mortgage deed dated 12.8.1981. The aforesaid Gurmit Kaur filed a suit for redemption of the mortgaged property against Gurdial Singh and others. During the pendency of this suit, Smt. Bhagwanti petitioner filed an application for impleading her as a party, contending that her husband Anokh Singh during his lifetime in a family arrangement had recognized her right of ownership of his entire estate and she has been receiving the rent of the property in dispute. She further alleged having filed a suit challenging the aforementioned mortgage deed, besides the sale of the property by Bhagwan Singh in favour of his wife Gurmit Kaur. Thus she maintained that she is a necessary party in the present suit. This application was resisted by Gurmit Kaur, contending that it was a simple suit for possession of the property by way of redemption from Gurdial Singh mortgagee and that Smt. Bhagwanti was not a necessary party as she has yet to establish her right of ownership to the estate of her late husband Anokh Singh. It was further maintained that aforesaid Anokh Singh had executed a will in favour of his son Bhagwan Singh. It was also contended that Smt Bhagwanti had contracted a second marriage with one Bachna during the life time of her previous husband Anokh Singh and that she had filed an affidavit in a suit titled Babu Singh v. Mohinder Kaur depicting herself to be the widow of aforesaid Bachna. A certified copy of Jamabandi for the year 1980 -81 was also relied upon in order to establish that Smt. Bhagwanti had claimed the property of Bachna by depicting herself as his widow.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the findings of this Court in Rajinder Singh v. Jaswant Singh, 1987 P.L.J. 68, contended that the petitioner should have been impleaded as a party in the present suit as she had a bona fide claim regarding the ownership of the, property in dispute He also referred to the provisions of Order 34, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, in support of the proposition that, in a suit for redemption of mortgage of immoveable property, all persons having an interest either in the mortgage -security or in the right of redemption shall be joined as parties to any suit relating to the mortgage. Reliance was also placed on the provisions of section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act in this regard.